Let’s look at some facts and data, shall we? Then I’ve got questions.
What it means: Blood is tested for antibodies to HIV 1&2 as part of the battery of tests performed to ensure donated blood is safe for use. However it may take several weeks to months after infection for HIV antibodies to present in the serum (if you contracted it last night, it may not be apparent until 3 months from now).
What it means: The population of concern are people who have been exposed to HIV but have not yet developed screen-able antibodies–new infections. So we look at the most recent transmission data from the CDC and note that men having sex with men are 2.5 times as likely to have a new infection as the second largest category, heterosexual contact.
My questions: How is the one year waiting period scientifically justified? One year would allow time for antibodies to appear, of course. But there is risk of undetectable infection in blood of people engaging in heterosexual contact, too. Even it it’s 2.5 times less than MSM is that risk not deserving of the one year abstinence period? And then where would be be in terms of blood supply? What is the risk benefit analysis here? I don’t yet get how this is a decision based in evidence on the part of the FDA. To me, it’s a little don’t-ask-don’t-tell-y. And by that I mean homophobic and embarrassing.
Also, I would like to know that data on the risk of transmission of HIV and the Heps when anitgen/antibody complexes are undetectable in the serum. And the number of people per year who contract HIV or Hep B or C from blood transfusions. Add that lit search to the pile.